Global Warming

[Calliso]

Most people acknowledge that the earth is warmer now than 150 years ago. Does that mean the majority believe that it has continued to warm in the last decade? That it is continuing to warm now? Maybe, maybe not. There are many ways in which man can (theoretically) influence the climate: clearing forests, slash and burn agriculture, ozone depletion. Do a majority of scientists believe that these activities have affected the climate? Maybe, maybe not.

On the only relevant question of whether man made releases of CO2 have caused a significant amount of global warming, however, I seriously doubt that a majority of scientists believe this to be so. I strongly suspect that the majority are (rightly) silent on that point. That is, what you claim and what you infer are two different things and what you claim is no proof of what you infer - even if true.

Ender

Ok I will post some info then. debatepolitics.com/Environment/37809-anthropogenic-global-warming-101-a.html this actually has alot more on it then just “concensus” info. scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/position-statements-hide-debate.php the second links deals more with the individual studies.

Now I will give you that I am sure there are peer reviewed studies that disagree with the concensus. And that there might be more scientists out there that disagree with the “concensus” then we know of. But it seems according to the evidence at least that these still donlt represent the majority.

 

[Monty_Arch]

On the only relevant question of whether man made releases of CO2 have caused a significant amount of global warming, however, I seriously doubt that a majority of scientists believe this to be so.

Ender

Actually, an increase in carbon dioxide follows the warming.

 

[Valke2]

Even if by some miracle we have not contributed to climate change, we have certainly contributed to chaning the chemical composition of the ocean and that in itself is a major concern.

 

[Calliso]

Even if by some miracle we have not contributed to climate change, we have certainly contributed to chaning the chemical composition of the ocean and that in itself is a major concern.

Yep Ocean acidification as it seems to be commonly known could have some very bad consequences. ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/Symposium2008/MonacoDeclaration.pdf ioc3
.unesco.org/oanet/Symposium2008/ResearchPrioritiesReport_OceanHighCO2WorldII.pdf (this is a pretty long so beware! )
And there is more info out there of course and much still needs to be learned much more research needs to be done. But the consequences of this could be severe and last for thousands maybe even million of years.

 

[vz71]

Now adays the Majority of scientists agree with global warming AND that it is at least partially manmade. As for the media…it seems to depend on the source and whatever mood they are in the day of the week. It seems they are just as eager to make claims of catastrophic global warming then the next month claim global warming has been disproven. That;s one big reason why in general the media is a pretty poor science source to prove much of anything.

Actually, you may want to check your timeline.
Some scientists sounded an alarm on global warming, the media picked it up and ran with it…then the claim of a majority of scientists backing the hoax came about.

And it is exactly that, a claim. One that I believe has been shown false multiple times. And one that still does not matter.

I do not care how many scientists tell me something is true that is false.
It is still false.

 

[vz71]

Now I will give you that I am sure there are peer reviewed studies that disagree with the concensus. And that there might be more scientists out there that disagree with the “concensus” then we know of. But it seems according to the evidence at least that these still donlt represent the majority.

At one point the earth was believed flat.
EVERYONE believed it. This did not make it so.

At one point, it was believed the earth was the center around which the universe moved.
In spite of the majority believing it, it was not so.

At one point, spontaneous generation was believed.
Nearly all of the scientists at the time believed it.
It was not so.

At one time, the majority of scientists (even Einstein) did not believe it possible to split an atom.
In spite of the majority believing it, it was not so.

In spite of all of these lessons concerning the majority beliefs, we still have people that believe that sheer numbers of scientists will make something so.

 

[Ender]

Ok I will post some info then. debatepolitics.com/Environment/37809-anthropogenic-global-warming-101-a.html this actually has alot more on it then just “concensus” info.

I guess it does; it has dozens and dozens of extraneous links. Don’t expect me to do your investigation for you. If you have a rebuttal to my statements then provide the specific link.

scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/position-statements-hide-debate.php the second links deals more with the individual studies.

Not studies, study … as in the Oreskes report. This is how your source describes its findings

1. 
   *]*explicit endorsement of the consensus position *
   *]*evaluation of impacts *
   *]*mitigation proposals *
   *]*methods *
   *]*paleoclimate analysis *
   *]rejection of the consensus position
   • Her key finding is that none of these papers fell into the last category while 75% fell into the first three.*
   This precisely illustrates my point; it is a perfect example of the little deceptions that run through this entire debate. Your point is that the majority of scientists support AGW - which I assume is the “consensus” position referred to above. In fact, however, this paper doesn’t claim that, instead it claims that 75% fall into one of three categories, two of which have nothing whatever to do with the mythical consensus.
   
   I am reminded of a talk given by pro basketball player Hot Rod Hundley where he recounts the game in which he and Elgin Baylor scored 76 points in a single game, the most ever by a pair of forwards. The punch line is when he confesses that he scored four while Elgin had 72. By mixing “agrees with the consensus” with two other categories Oreskes has done the same thing - only without the honesty of confessing how many fell into category one.
   

   But it seems according to the evidence at least that these {deniers} still donlt represent the majority.

   Yes, but shooting down a claim I didn’t make doesn’t seem all that convincing. I’m pretty sure I said that the majority haven’t taken a position at all.
   
   Ender

 

[Valke2]

At this point if people aren’t convinced that we are causing global warming, no data or study is going to convince them otherwise. Fortunately the world on the whole recognizes the problem. Hopefully the world will address it.

 

[vz71]

At this point if people aren’t convinced that we are causing global warming, no data or study is going to convince them otherwise. Fortunately the world on the whole recognizes the problem. Hopefully the world will address it.

At this point, many are not convinced there is even Global Warming going on.
And true to Global Warming activists throughout the thread, the facts as presented are not necessarily so.
The ‘world on the whole’ is undefined. So you can lay claim to it saying anything and claim truth to the statement.
The ‘world on the whole’ likes my mother’s Key Lime Pie.
Without actually laying out concrete terms, my statement is just as true as yours.

How about actually providing evidence for the case instead of generalities and alarmism.

 

[Valke2]

At this point, many are not convinced there is even Global Warming going on.
And true to Global Warming activists throughout the thread, the facts as presented are not necessarily so.
The ‘world on the whole’ is undefined. So you can lay claim to it saying anything and claim truth to the statement.
The ‘world on the whole’ likes my mother’s Key Lime Pie.
Without actually laying out concrete terms, my statement is just as true as yours.

How about actually providing evidence for the case instead of generalities and alarmism.

I’ll define “whole world” as every country that is making the curbing of greenhouse gases a priority. That would include China, Europe, North America, much of South America, Much of Africa, Indonesia, Australia, Japan, England, and the Vatican. While some of these countries may be doing very little, they have all acknowledged the reality and the problem of climate change.

At this point I’m more interested in discussing solutions than trying to convince skeptics on this issue. If we wait for 100% consensus before addressing the problem we are putting 100s of millions in unnecessary danger.

 

[Valke2]

Mayors from more than 350 cities across Europe signed an EU climate change agreement Tuesday pledging to cut carbon dioxide emissions by more than 20 percent by 2020.
news.aol.com/article/european-cities-sign-climate-change/317831?flv=1&icid=rbox_news.M

As the temperature across the U.S. has gotten warmer, the purple finch has been spending its winters more than 400 miles farther north than it used to.
aim.search.aol.com/search/search?&query=climate%20change%20news&invocationType=TB50TR

Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world’s politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming …The meeting follows “disturbing” studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.
aim.search.aol.com/search/search?&query=climate%20change%20news&invocationType=TB50TR

A number of studies published since the IPCC report was prepared show that carbon emissions are rising faster than expected and that existing greenhouse gas targets may not be enough to prevent catastrophic temperature rise. ibid.

Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy (U.S.), said, “I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen…[We’re] looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.
pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=494

 

[vz71]

Fortunately the world on the whole recognizes the problem.

I’ll define “whole world” as every country that is making the curbing of greenhouse gases a priority.

Is that circle making you dizzy?

 

[vz71]

At this point if people aren’t convinced that we are causing global warming, no data or study is going to convince them otherwise.

While some of these countries may be doing very little, they have all acknowledged the reality and the problem of climate change.

So are we discussing global warming, or climate change?

Same old problem with the global warming alarmist side of the argument. Failure to commit to specifics.

 

[vz71]

If we wait for 100% consensus before addressing the problem we are putting 100s of millions in unnecessary danger.

And if we take the wrong action, we make everything worse.

Better to stop and wait for a complete understanding before taking any action at all.

 

[vz71]

Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world’s politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming …The meeting follows “disturbing” studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.

Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy (U.S.), said, “I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen…[We’re] looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.

And again, a failure to state specifics.
Could happen, Could strike, etc…

How about what actually IS?

Without concrete words and examples, all of these quotes are nothing more then scare mongering.

 

[Valke2]

And again, a failure to state specifics.
Could happen, Could strike, etc…

How about what actually IS?

Without concrete words and examples, all of these quotes are nothing more then scare mongering.

I wouild argue that ignoring them is nothing more than ostrich posturing.

 

[Calliso]

So are we discussing global warming, or climate change?

Same old problem with the global warming alarmist side of the argument. Failure to commit to specifics.

We are talking about global warming which can lead to climate change. And actually here is a good article on the subject of what to call it yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2007/10/call-it-climate-change-strike-that-lets-call-it-global-warming-strike-that-lets-call-it/

 

[Calliso]

Actually, you may want to check your timeline.
Some scientists sounded an alarm on global warming, the media picked it up and ran with it…then the claim of a majority of scientists backing the hoax came about.

And it is exactly that, a claim. One that I believe has been shown false multiple times. And one that still does not matter.

I do not care how many scientists tell me something is true that is false.
It is still false.

So you think you know more then scientists that have studied this stuff? Cause that is the impression I am getting. Why do you believe what one group is telling you but call the other hoax? And I find it funny you seem to demand absolutely proof for anything related to global warming or even global warming itself. But do you actually have any real solid evidence that this is a hoax? Or is it just how you feel?

 

[Calliso]

I guess it does; it has dozens and dozens of extraneous links. Don’t expect me to do your investigation for you. If you have a rebuttal to my statements then provide the specific link.

Not studies, study … as in the Oreskes report. This is how your source describes its findings

1. 
   *]*explicit endorsement of the consensus position *
   *]*evaluation of impacts *
   *]*mitigation proposals *
   *]*methods *
   *]*paleoclimate analysis *
   *]rejection of the consensus position
   • Her key finding is that none* of these papers fell into the last category while 75% fell into the first three.
   This precisely illustrates my point; it is a perfect example of the little deceptions that run through this entire debate. Your point is that the majority of scientists support AGW - which I assume is the “consensus” position referred to above. In fact, however, this paper doesn’t claim that, instead it claims that 75% fall into one of three categories, two of which have nothing whatever to do with the mythical consensus.
   
   I am reminded of a talk given by pro basketball player Hot Rod Hundley where he recounts the game in which he and Elgin Baylor scored 76 points in a single game, the most ever by a pair of forwards. The punch line is when he confesses that he scored four while Elgin had 72. By mixing “agrees with the consensus” with two other categories Oreskes has done the same thing - only without the honesty of confessing how many fell into category one.
   
   Yes, but shooting down a claim I didn’t make doesn’t seem all that convincing. I’m pretty sure I said that the majority haven’t taken a position at all.
   
   Ender

1. 
   Ok the link is logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm sorry should have done this before. And just in case some more names in case they are not all listed in the link , NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies
   the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
   the National Academy of Sciences
   the Environmental Protection Agency
   the American Geophysical Union
   the American Institute of Physics
   the National Center for Atmospheric Research
   the American Meteorological Society
   the National Research Council
   the US Geological Survey
   the US Dept of Agriculture
   the vast majority of peer review
   as well as independent research
   the Pentagon
   the White House
   Scientific American
   Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M
   the American Physical Society
   
   Also I realize now that I wasn;t clear at all what I was trying to talk about when I referenced that study. My point wasn;t to say oh look! this woman did this study and all these papers support the concensus! The point was to show that at least one study shows that at least in terms of papers published there isnt many scientists that disagree with the “concensus” Sorry I get to typing sometimes and in my head I know what I am talking about but I sometimes forget to actually be more clear as if someone isn;t reading my mind… . But I wasn;t trying to be deceptive please donlt assume that. And I apologize for assuming things on your part too.

 

[sodak]

So you think you know more then scientists that have studied this stuff? Cause that is the impression I am getting. Why do you believe what one group is telling you but call the other hoax? And I find it funny you seem to demand absolutely proof for anything related to global warming or even global warming itself. But do you actually have any real solid evidence that this is a hoax? Or is it just how you feel?

In many cases, yes. A lot of these scientists have degrees in other fields. And a lot of them have been wrong many times over. As I’ve said earlier, consensus means NOTHING. A lot of countries are in favor of the Kyoto protocol because it will benefit them both economically and politically, while hurting us. No big mystery there.

The last 10 years have been a cooling cycle. And while CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up, the temps haven’t. Interesting.

We’ve been collecting reliable data on this earth for maybe 200 - 400 years. Maybe. Let’s put this in perspective.

Age of earth
6,000,000,000 years
Age of data
400

Looks statistically insignificant to me.